Oooh, nuance!

Okay, maybe not. But man, I wish Barack Obama could borrow her sense of humor - and her ad shop.

As you may or may not know, John McCain put out an ad comparing Obama to empty-headed celebrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Senator Obama, the hysterions in the Obamasphere, and many opinionators in the corporate media immediately screamed, "RACISM!" because Britney and Paris are white and of course, McCain implied that Obama wanted to have sex with them. (insert eyeroll here) This tactic backfired completely, and allowed McCain's true narrative of Obama as young, vapid and unready to lead to infect the public's brains, completely unchallenged by the Senator from Illinois.

If only Obama had the first fucking clue about how to fight the Republicans, I might feel a little better about him. Indeed, when I first picked Hillary as my favorite waaaaaaaayyyyyy back when (second favorite, since Al Gore wasn't running), it was her experience standing up to the right wing noise machine that attracted me to her. And my first reservations about Obama came when I saw how his vaunted "post-partisan" approach was unlikely to achieve any results. As The Great Krugman said,

As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.

Confrontation is not the same as whining that McCain is being mean to you because you're black. You need to take on the Republics on the issues, and make them back down. Up the ante. No matter what they do, laugh it off and refocus the debate.

Which brings me to President Paris Hilton. Here is her hilarious and pointed rebuttal to McCain's charges that she is a dumb blonde who contributes nothing to society. (Yes, Paris Hilton got the point of the ad and Barack Obama and his supporters didn't. Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmmm.")

"Hey America, I'm Paris Hilton and I'm a celebrity, too. Only I'm not from the olden days and I'm not promising change like that other guy. I'm just hot," Hilton said, speaking as she reclined in a pool chair in a revealing bathing suit and a pair of pumps. "But then that wrinkly, white-haired guy used me in his campaign ad, which I guess means I'm running for president. So thanks for the endorsement white-haired dude."

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead," she said.

She then discusses energy policy, and suggests a hybrid of McCain's offshore oil drilling plan and Obama's incentives for new energy technology.

"Energy crisis solved! I'll see you at the debates," she said,

Senator Obama, do you see what she did there? She made fun of herself and of McCain, and then focused on the issues!

And do you know how McCain's people responded?

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said Hilton appears to support his candidate's "all of the above" energy solution.

"Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan," Bounds said.

BAM! Wow. Suddenly, we're back to talking about the issues.

If only Barack Obama, instead of screaming "OMG TEH RACISM!!111!!!" had put out an ad that went a little something like this:

"Hi, I'm Barack Obama. Of course, you know that. Maybe John McCain's right, and I AM the biggest celebrity in the world. But that doesn't mean I don't have a plan for a better America.

John McCain wants to stick to outdated technologies like coal, nuclear power and offshore drilling, which would continue to harm our environment and keep us stuck in the 20th Century. My plan emphasizes renewable resources, existing, effective technology like wind and solar power, and will have us completely independent from foreign oil by the year 2018.

Hmmmm. Maybe they like me...for a reason."

This is so simple, Paris Hilton can do it; but apparently, Barack Obama can't. And now, he has been forced to admit that he WAS race-baiting when he talked about not looking like Presidents from the past, and has had to publicly state that John McCain's campaign is cynical, not racist. Now McCain can use that soundbyte against Obama if they do decide to go all Harold Ford on him.

If this is how Obama is going to run the GE, I see a McGovern-like defeat for the Democrats - and possible down-ticket issues in the House and Senate as well.

I sure hope the SuperDelegates have the courage to do their jobs, because it looks like, despite the best efforts of the DNC to prevent any choice at the Convention, Hillary WILL be in nomination and on the ballot.

It's simple, SuperDelegates - do you want to win in November, or do you want to lose?

I'll bet even Paris Hilton could answer that question correctly.

On July 4th, I wrote a post about losing faith in the Democratic Brand. Today, I am explaining my strategic plans for saving it - and why they do not include voting for Barack Obama.

The DNC is currently bound and determined to nominate Obama for President. (I believe the fix has been in since 2004, personally.) They have allowed him to take over the DNC and move the headquarters to Chicago; they have allowed him to decide that Howard Dean gets to keep his job; and they've chosen a giant football stadium in which he is to accept his nomination on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech. They are backing their man, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.

There's only one problem: Obama does not appeal to the Democratic base. The working class, by and large - Latinos, whites, Asians and some African-Americans, all registered Democrats - did not support the Senator from Illinois in the primaries. And according to CNN, the number of Hillary's supporters who are saying they would support Obama if nominated is actually going down, while 43% of Democrats still say they would prefer her to be the nominee. This is all despite Hillary getting the worst press imaginable, her suspending her campaign and going on fundraising "Unity" missions with Obama, and her virtual absence from the spotlight for more than a month.

I will not elaborate on my incredible frustration with the Party for picking one of the worst candidates I have ever seen in my lifetime to go up against John McCain for the presidency. No, I will leave that to the eloquent and fantabulous riverdaughter. My purpose today is to go beyond the nomination and project forward into the possible presidencies of all three candidates: Clinton, Obama and McCain.

Honestly, I think that whomever wins in November will have an absolutely terrible first term. The economy is simply in free-fall. We are looking at stagflation and a looming Great Depression, in my opinion. Thanks to eight years of lawless, consequence-free behavior by the BFEE (Bush Family Evil Empire), our Constitution is disintegrating. The separation of powers, the laws of habeas corpus, the wall between church and state, the right to privacy and to free speech - all have been abridged or almost destroyed by BushCheney Inc. And let's not forget our seeming inability to do anything constructive regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks to the "surge," more troops are actually in Iraq than there were before the Democratic Congress was elected to bring them home. Heckuva job, Congresscritters! (Word is, thanks to Dennis Kucinich's persistence, Nancy Pelosi is now considering setting the table for impeachment. Wow, can you say too little, too late?)

The next President will have a lot of extremely difficult choices to make, and the chances are that when the country is not 100% fixed in four years, there will be a massive backlash against whomever that President will be. So, who do we want to suffer those consequences - Obama, McCain or Clinton? I believe it should be either McCain or Clinton, and here's why.

Trust me, I know McCain is just atrocious. I don't believe one word of his latest "I'm a moderate! Really really!" advertising. I think he will do nothing to remedy the effects of Bush's disastrous presidency. However, he clearly has no interest in running for a second term, so he will be free to be more independent than any other Republican nominee would be. I also believe that he can and will be constrained by a much larger majority in Congress, especially since some Republicans have started voting with Democrats on some issues. Thus, I believe his presidency would put the Congress back into a stronger place institutionally, and give them a chance to prove that they are truly interested in doing what's right for this country. (And if they don't, PUMA should make them. I will post more on what I think the future of PUMA should be at a later date.)

A McCain presidency might not be as bad as we think. It does depend on whom he picks as his VP, and whether or not that person would be a viable presidential candidate in 2012. And that brings me to my second possibility: an Obama presidency.

Unfortunately, I don't believe Obama would be a strong Democratic President. What we need now is someone who will absolutely repudiate the disastrous policies of George W. Bush. 80% of the country believes we are going in the wrong direction. Yet Obama's entire campaign is based on courting Republicans and Independents and "unifying" with them. Even worse, he agrees with some of the worst of the Deciderer's policies, as he has shown in the past two weeks. Warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity? Just fine. Faith-based initiatives? Let's do more! And the war? Well, golly, he might need to refine that Iraq withdrawal policy just a wee bit. Even a veto-proof majority Democratic Congress just might be more likely to go along with this Republican bullshit if it's a Democratic President who wants it.

Muddling and confusion are NOT what the Democratic brand needs right now. The country has enormous problems. We need an FDR, and at best, Obama is a Carter. (At BEST. Unlike Carter, I don't think Obama has a prayer of being elected, but whatever.) Remember what happened after Carter was President for one term? Do the words "twelve years of Republican dominance" mean anything to you? Even worse, like Carter, Obama has shown no ability to beat back the Republican scream machine, so he will get blamed for the economy, the war and the energy crisis. And then where will the Democrats be? NOT in a position to win the White House in 2012 - not even if Hillary runs again. And that brings me to the best-case scenario: Hillary Clinton as President.

I think there's no doubt that if Hillary is our next President, she is also in for a horrible time. And how! Her Party will give her trouble because she will push for UHC, meaningful economic and social reform, major investments in infrastructure and the greening of energy sources...in other words, she'll make them do the hard work, and they don't want to! The press will be all over her and Bill, and despite her incredible competence and detailed plans for moving the country forward, I predict she won't be able to turn things completely around in just four years.

But guess what?

She can handle it.

That's really what it comes down to. You saw Hillary in those debates, where she was getting attacked from all sides, and she handled it. She's risen in popularity and strength despite the ugliest, nastiest attacks her own Party could throw at her. All she had to do was stop listening to Mark Penn and be herself. She handled it. She has withstood the barrage of insults, sexism and outright lies the media has perpetrated against her and emerged as a working-class hero. She handled it.

And in the end, should she prevail against The Fix and beat McCain in November, she will be able to persuade the American people to vote for her again, just like her husband did in 1996.

She will handle it.

And isn't that what we need to happen if we ever want to be a credible alternative to the Republicans again?

So don't tell me I have to vote for Obama. It's not going to happen. Because I'm thinking about the future of the country and the Party, and Obama would be bad for both.

He can't handle it.

Strategery. It's not just for Republicans any more.

PUMA!

I just saw this ad from John McCain (h/t to RalphB at TalkLeft). In it, he defines America's new purpose: Energy Security. The announcer intones, "For many years, American technology protected us...We didn't go to the moon because it was easy, but because it was hard."

Holy Jumping Jesus.

I've had various conversations with family members and my spousal unit about how the Democrats need to do EXACTLY what John McCain is doing: Redefine the words "national security" to include getting off our dependence on foreign oil, and re-familiarize Americans with the concept of sacrifice and hard work (without the air quotes a la Monsieur Deciderer). And even more unbelievable, McCain is using John F. Kennedy to do it!

If Jimmy Carter had Senator McCain's marketing team in 1976, we would be a whole different country by now. Carter's plan would have had us almost totally independent of foreign oil. We never would have invaded, oh, so many countries. Our world would not be in the grip of catastrophic climate change. Etc. etc. ad infinitum.

I am nearly speechless because of this incontrovertible fact: While Senator Obama chases the mythical creamy center, which to him appears to be located somewhere between the far and extreme right, John McCain is co-opting Democratic frames and using them to move to Obama's left.

Someone please wake me up from this nightmare.

If you were Barack Obama, and you had close, long-time and (to put it kindly) problematic associations with fringe religious figures like Wright, Meeks and Pfleger, wouldn't you kinda sorta downplay your religiosity?

Apparently not.

A spokesperson said the meeting of some 30 people will include leaders from several denominations including Evangelical, Catholic and Protestant members of the faith community. Among those taking part are Bishop Phillip Cousin, the Rev. Stephen Thurston and Dr. T. Dewitt Smith.

"Reaching out to the faith community is a priority for Barack Obama and will be a priority under an Obama Administration. This is one of several meetings he will have over the coming months with religious leaders," Jen Psaki told reporters on the campaign plane.

"He's done it before. He'll do it again. Some of those in attendance are supporters," Psaki said. "It's a combination of people who are from Chicago and from outside Chicago."

Heh heh. I love the myopic view of the United States from Psaki. "From Chicago and from outside Chicago." (Reminds me of those jokes about how New Yorkers see America.) And notice how there are no Jewish or Muslim leaders included? Yeah, me too.

It appears that Obama's General Election strategy is to try to peel off some of the evangelical and Christian Conservative votes from McCain. Senator McCain will have trouble with them, since he is not a born-again Christian like George Bush, and I believe at one point in his life he actually believed women should be able to control their own bodies. (GASP!) The Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody is so excited about this, he gushes like a tween meeting Hannah Montana:

As we first reported on The Brody File, Obama is meeting with influential mega-pastor TD Jakes and pro-life Catholic constitutional law professor Doug Kmiec... That's a big deal. A really big deal. The fact that these two conservative men are meeting with Obama may be a signal that Obama's campaign is ready to break down the traditional wall of separation between conservatives and liberals when it comes to religious talk.

[snip]

Folks, this is an important development. It shows that the game has changed. Old rules don't apply. We're in uncharted territory. John McCain's religious outreach team has to now step to the plate and work hard for faith voters. It's not automatic.

Oh, whatever. So Senator Obama is pandering to the evangelicals a little. The wall between church and state will be built back up under Obama. Nothing to worry about. Right?

The Brody File has learned that in the next two weeks Barack Obama's campaign will unveil a major new program to attract younger Evangelicals and Catholics to their campaign.

It's called the "Joshua Generation Project." The name is based on the biblical story of how Joshua's generation led the Israelites into the Promised Land.

A source close to the Obama campaign tells The Brody File the following:

"The Joshua Generation project will be the Obama campaign's outreach to young people of faith. There's unprecedented energy and excitement for Obama among young evangelicals and Catholics. The Joshua Generation project will tap into that excitement and provide young people of faith opportunities to stand up for their values and move the campaign forward."

I am getting very, very worried. Every single thing about Obama's campaign is a parallel of George W. Bush's campaign! Obama has cheated and used sexism and race-baiting in order to become the presumptive nominee. (In 2000, Bush's campaign used a push poll in South Carolina to knock out McCain by asking the voters if they "knew" McCain had a black baby out of wedlock.) He uses religion as a recruiting tool. He speaks in slogans and code and has a cult-like following. He campaigns as a "compassionate conservative," throwing away millions of core Democratic voters with both hands, while fervently reaching out to core Republican voters like evangelical conservative Christians.

I would like for someone, anyone, to explain to me what Democratic value Barack Obama actually stands for. And "just words" won't do. I'm talking about something on which he has actually taken a stand and affirmed with his vote.

[cricket cricket cricket]

So, as it stands right now, I've got a choice between two conservative wannabes in November. McCain is trying to convince evangelicals that he's a real right-winger...and so is Obama.

France is looking better and better all the time.

and just three to go before the American people have all cast their votes (in VERY high numbers!) for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

It was a split decision: a giant victory in Kentucky for Hillary, and a large victory in Oregon for Obama. Let's do a little number crunching, shall we?

35 percentage points.

That's the number by which Obama lost to Hillary in Kentucky.

Now, we can do the simplistic thing and assume that Kentucky (and West Virginia, where she crushed Obama by 41) are both full of banjo-twanging, dentally-challenged racist rednecks; or, we can look a little deeper into the exit polling.

The Wright Factor: Still In Play.

78%.

That's the amount of respondents who felt that Obama shares the views of his pastor, mentor and friend of 20 years, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to some degree.

22%.

That's the percentage of people who responded "Not at all" to the question of whether or not Obama shared Wright's values. NOT surprisingly, they voted overwhelmingly (65%) for Senator Obama.

What's the Matter with Bitter, Clinging Working-Class Voters?

67%.

That's the amount of respondents who stated that the economy was the most important issue. Hillary Clinton's voters made up 69% of that number.

So no, all you people who think Barack Obama made some kind of profound statement with his BitterCling remarks. Those voters are NOT voting because of religion, love of guns, fear of immigrants or racism. They are voting their pocketbooks, and they like the cut of Hillary's jib on that issue. Who wouldn't? The economy was her husband's strongest issue, after all.

Now, let's get to the numbers that should be giving the Democratic Party agita if they actually want to win in November.

33%.

That's the percentage of Hillary's voters that would be "satisfied" if Barack Obama was the nominee. Yowch.

28%.

That's the percentage of Kentucky voters who would be "satisfied" with either candidate. (A bit of decent news here: 48% of Hillary's voters said either candidate was fine...and 48% of Barack Obama's voters said the same thing.)

74%.

That's the total amount of Kentucky voters who would be satisfied with Hillary Clinton as the nominee. In contrast, 42% would be satisfied with Barack Obama as the nominee.

Look, we can be like the rabid Obamans at Daily Kos who moan about what ignorant fools they be in Appalachia, or we can take a good hard look at these numbers and figure out how to actually beat McCaca in November. (I just had a terrible thought - what if McCaca picks Colin Powell as his VP? Holy crap!)

I feel that Hillary Clinton must be the nominee, or we will lose our opportunity to expand the electoral map in a truly amazing way. (I even saw a head-to-head poll matchup against McCaca in North Carolina where McCaca beats Obama, but LOSES TO HILLARY. My Jeebus!)

Whether Obama is her VP or not is an open question - Kentucky voters say no, but only by 8% - but it seems to me that the voters we need are speaking in very loud tones.

We would be idiots to ignore them.

I know that John McCain will not.

Why are conservatives the only ones telling the truth about this primary?

It breaks my heart to agree so strongly with Ed Koch. But truth is truth, dammit, no matter who speaks it.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Koch warned that despite Obama's lead in every single primary election metric [if you don't count Florida and Michigan, of course!], the Illinois Democrat simply would not be able to best John McCain come November. As such, he urged Clinton to stay in the race even as some in the party call for her drop out now, even before Obama has officially secured the nomination.

Were the majority of states and voters who had gone to Obama - and the superdelegates who could very well affirm their decisions - making a grievous political mistake?

"Mistake is not exactly the word," replied Koch. "It is the wrong judgment. The reason that the superdelegates are there is to select that person who is most likely to prevail. And...even though he does not win on his own merits in terms of racking up sufficient delegates, in all probability the superdelegates will be afraid to exercise their own judgment. And we will simply go along with the count of the delegates that were chosen in the polls."

Koch's argued that Obama showed a complete lack of conviction and leadership in handling the controversy surrounding his former pastor. The theme is a constant feature in the former mayor's syndicated columns, several of which have directly questioned the credibility of Obama's attempts to distance himself from Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"...If you are running for president, you can't be like some other poor guy in the pews who is afraid to stand up or even say something privately to the minister. You're the guy who wants to lead the country and you have to have courage to stand up and lead your own pastor. He did not exhibit that. But the fact that the Democratic constituency doesn't seem to care is a shock to me, but I'm certain that the overall constituency voting in November will care and that it will make the difference in the adverse way to his candidacy."

Um.

YEAH.

Here's the real kicker:

Saying he would support Clinton and "hope she ultimately prevails," Koch wasn't worried that Democratic infighting could hurt the party's chances in the fall. It was Obama's candidacy, he repeated, that would be the death knell.

"I believe that when the voting is over that the vast majority, not all, on both sides, will vote for the [Democratic] candidate," said Koch. "But that applies only to the Democrats who have been participating. I believe that the vast majority of voters will look at all of these allegations, which nobody disputes, as related to Wright and his comments, and that they will have an enormous impact on the vote and on those Independents and others who will make a decision in the general election. I just think he is a loser because of that." [emphasis added]

Don't you Obamans get it?

You can call for unity all you want, after you have smeared, defamed and dismissed Hillary and Bill Clinton. Many of us - in fact, the majority - will listen, because we really, really do not want McCaca as president.

But it won't matter.

In order to win the General Election, the Democrat or Republic has to get Independents to vote for him or her. It's a numbers game. On average, we've got about 30% unaffiliated (or Independent) voters in America. We have about an equal number of Democrats and Republics - around 34% Republics and 36% Democrats in January 2008. Democrats also traditionally have lower voter turnout than Republics (although if we follow the primary numbers, this could change in November.) So, we need those issues-based voters very badly.

I absolutely know that Obama will not get those voters in November. And so does Ed Koch. Wright is not the only reason; there's also experience and national security credentials, which Obama lacks but McCaca has (and so does HRC, which makes her the stronger candidate against McCaca).

I'm so sorry to say this, but we are looking at President McCaca if the superdelegates don't make the right decision, and there's nothing we can do about it.

And THAT is why many of us HRC supporters have resolved that, should HRC not be the nominee, we will not vote for Obama no matter what, and that we will change our party affiliation to Independent.

Any political party that would promote a sure loser over a sure winner doesn't deserve my money, time or support.

The Democratic Party still has time to save itself. Will it? Or will it go down in flames just when it should be most triumphant?

Tune in next time for another episode of..."As the Democrats Turn!"

Time for the lighter side of the campaign trail! Here are some fun slogans for all the candidates to use. Yes, some may be a bit...snarky.

For Senator John McCain:

McCain '08. What's 100 years of war between friends?

McCain '08. Less drunk than Bush, angrier than Cheney!

McCain '08. Islamofascists better stay off his lawn!

McCain '08. Bombing Iran with a song in is heart!

For Senator Barack Obama:

Obama '08. You have the change I'm looking for!

Obama '08. Black when I wanna be!***

***(I know, I know, ouch. But I think it's valid, from my own observations about how he has run his campaign. Also, take a look at this story from the liberal Black Agenda Report.)

Obama '08. Clinton made me do it!

(h/t TalkLeft)

For Senator Hillary Clinton:

Clinton '08. I'm not dead yet!

Clinton '08. It takes a woman to clean up the White House!

Clinton '08. Clintons wobble, but they don't fall down!

Waddaya think?

Barack Obama's campaign, faced with irrefutable evidence from the exit polls and results in Pennsylvania, has finally admitted the problems he will have reaching out to white working-class voters if he becomes the nominee. The presumed Democratic front-runner took the first steps towards Democratic Party Unity by stating,

"You know, I realize that despite my intense concern for the working families of America, I have sometimes come across as if I didn't care. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I will be working very hard to convince the voters of this great country that I, in the inimitable words of Bill Clinton, feel their pain."

I applaud this savvy statement from Senator Obama. First, he admits there's a problem and that it's no one's fault but his own. Second, he throws in "this great country," which helps firm up the perception that he actually does love America. Third, he finally says something nice about the most successful and popular Democratic President most Americans can now remember. Great job, Senator!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just kidding! That's what an ELECTABLE candidate would do. John Kerry was Bill Clinton compared to this guy.

Here's the latest "gaffe" from Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod. "Mind-blowingly idiotic" is a kind way to describe it.

"The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years [emphasis mine]. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."

Here's how Bill Clinton won, you ridiculous, lying little snake. HE WON WHITE WORKING-CLASS VOTERS. Of course he didn't rely solely on them to win, but the fact that they "swung" to him made his win possible. That's what the expression "swing state" means. You. Idiot.

Now, I do understand that Barack Obama's strategy is to expand the electoral map in a previously unseen way. He brags about his Republican and Independent support, which I continue to believe is based on no evidence whatsoever. (Crossovers in the Democratic primaries and caucuses do not count. Republicans are known to vote strategically, and often they vote for the opponent they would like to run against.) He wants to count on some of the "red" states, such as Virginia, to carry him over the top. But has he really looked at who John McCain appeals to? Has he seen the effect his dismissive, insulting campaign has had on Hillary's voters? About 50% of those voters will not vote for him in the fall. Honey, there aren't enough young and African-American voters in the world to compensate for that loss.

I ask in despair, what did the Democratic Party ever do to deserve Axelrod and Obama? Haven't we been punished enough by seven years of the Worst President Ever? Do we really need to shoot ourselves in the foot once again by trying to shove an inexperienced, charismatic neophyte down America's throat?

I guess when Obama loses 40 states to John McCain in November, the Obamans will console themselves that they were prophets, misunderstood in their own time, and that all the core Democrats who wanted to vote for the more experienced, more qualified, and more electable candidate were just evil monsters and Republicans at heart. But frankly, they will be the only ones surprised. The rest of us have seen this movie before.

And once again, the ending will be tragic.

and yet, McCaca is still a warmongering asshole.

Republican U.S. presidential candidate John McCain said on Wednesday he would not rule out launching preemptive wars against future enemies.

President George W. Bush, in launching his 2003 invasion of Iraq, said it was necessary to forestall possible future attacks from a country that was developing weapons of mass destruction.

None of the weapons he alleged were in Iraq were subsequently found.

[snip]

When asked at a town hall meeting about the Bush policy on preemption, McCain said: "I don't think you can make a blanket statement about preemptive war because obviously it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces."

After the Sept. 11 attacks Bush approved a new national security strategy in 2002 that allowed the United States to strike first against U.S. enemies believed to be about to use weapons of mass destruction against America.

The doctrine triggered a wide debate and criticism from the administration's critics at the time.

Folks, as the once-great Randi Rhodes used to say, "When they show you who they are, BELIEVE THEM."

Iraq for 100 years? HE MEANS IT.

More wars? HE MEANS IT.

This is the future of our country if McCaca becomes president in 2009. Please don't be under any illusion that he is a moderate of any sort. He's just another tool of the military-industrial complex.

And don't forget that he doesn't really understand economics. Just what we need, since the economy is so awesomely strong and robust!

Waitaminute...

He absolutely, positively refuses to get the most basic elements of the Iraq occupation correct.

What is he, guessing?

This is absurd. And it's not the first time he's done it, either - there have been four other occasions on which he has stated that Iran and Al-Qaeda are directly linked.

And as for the actions of Muqtada Al-Sadr last week, McCain seems to be a tad confused as well.

There are two possibilities here, neither of them good.

1) McCaca is old and senile and honestly doesn't know what he's talking about; in which case, he is simply unable to be President; or,

2) He is insidiously catapulting the propaganda that Iraq would be doing fine if it weren't for Iran; in which case, he is trying to drum up a case for war against Iran, and is a carbon copy of the Warmongerer-In-Chief.

I'm voting for option two.

I'm adding my voice to the "Any Democrat 08" brigade once more. Anyone considering voting for McCaca, or staying home, should consider his obvious intentions to continue and embiggen, if you will, the horrific policies of George W. Bush. If you want, as Teresa Heinz Kerry famously said, "Four more years of hell," then by all means, help make McCaca our next Deciderer.

But be prepared for The Worst President Evah, Part Deux. Because "there will be other wars."

Our Deciderer is vewy, vewy sad about the (at least) 4000 dead U.S. soldiers that he murdered for profit. No, REALLY! (No word yet on whether he's cried for the millions of displaced, tortured and murdered Iraqis, but if he does, I'm sure CNN will cover those very important drops of saltwater.)

President Bush is "grieved by the moment" as the U.S. military death toll in Iraq surpassed 4,000, his spokeswoman said today.

"He obviously is grieved by the moment, but he mourns the loss of every single life, from the very first that was lost in this conflict, to the ones that are lost today," White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters this morning.

Bush "bears the responsibility for the decisions that he made, and he also bears the responsibility to continue to focus on succeeding. And one of the things that he hears from families of the fallen is that they want him to lead the country to complete the mission [emphasis added]."

Oh! Silly me! I thought the mission was ACCOMPLISHED. I wonder why so many people died AFTER we won the war?

As for the rest, Dana, you lying whore, Bush bears NO responsibility for anything he has ever done. Everyone in America knows this by now. As I've said before, his only job is to catapult the propaganda - or as my husband says, he's a cheerleader. He and his Bushbots lied 935 times to drag us into Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Condi are vampires feeding off Iraq's resources, and the more they suck, the more they need. They're addicted to the no-bid contracts and all that free-flowing oil, especially at the special Bush-Cheney price of $110/barrel.

We don't need tears and prayers. We need action.

Unfortunately, with these vampires in charge of our government, we won't get any. All we'll get are professions of grief and the same old "stay the course" policy we've had for five fucking years.

And if we elect McCaca in 2008, we'll have many, many more years of this war - and I suspect we'll all be crying a lot more as our husbands, fathers and sons are drafted for the new Vietnam's meat grinder.

But our grief, unlike Bush's, will be real.

The more this story about the lobbyist and McCain develops, the more it looks like it's directly impacting his narrative.

I had an exchange with the talented Four Legs Good on Eschaton yesterday, in which he implied that Obama's string of primary victories over Hillary had nothing to do with narrative. I respectfully disagreed, and said that in my opinion, every campaign is about narrative. Obama's fresh face, his charisma and his natural campaigning ability, along with his tongue-bathing by the national press and the public support of one of the most worshiped women in America, have allowed him to write his own narrative. He is the big change America needs right now, the great hope of American democracy. It's an extremely powerful narrative after the horrors we have endured under George W. Bush, and it has acquired a momentum that most likely will not be stopped in the primaries.

Hillary's narrative, on the other hand, has already been written by the press - she's a cold, manipulative, ambitious shrew who is only out for power - and she has had an uphill battle trying to overcome it. Her war vote has alienated many on the left, although they forgave John Kerry and John Edwards for theirs, and although Barack Obama himself has said that he doesn't know how he would have voted on the AUMF had he not been fortunate enough to be a Senate outsider at the time. Never mind, she's an evil warmongering bitch and Obama is a sainted hero with superior judgment. I suppose judgment and luck are synonymous to Obamans.

It hasn't helped that the press has cut Senator Clinton no slack whatsoever, painting her and Bill as racists (a charge contradicted by common sense - if they were racists, wouldn't we know after 16 years of intense scrutiny?) when they say anything negative about Obama, while allowing Obama to get away with nasty stunts like this and this, for example, with nary a ding to his halo.

It looks like with Hillary's recent loss in Wisconsin, she has one last stand in Ohio and Texas, and if she doesn't win there, her narrative will have been beaten by Obama's. Although the delegate count will remain close enough to go to the convention, she will be seen as a loser who cannot deliver in November. And so it goes.

As for McCaca's narrative, it has been written by the press too - and it's been overwhelmingly positive. Ignoring his flip-flopping on torture (he was against it, then he voted for it time and again) and public financing (for it, against it, for it, then hoping to be for and against it at the same time), the press routinely calls him a maverick and a straight talker with no evidence whatsoever. David Brock of Media Matters, with excellent timing, has just come out with a new book on the media's incredibly generous treatment of John McCain. I very much look forward to cracking that one open.

I don't think anyone cares too much about the personal angle of the McCain story (except possibly the fundies, who were not going to vote for him in large numbers anyway). No, what's suddenly coming to the fore are more stories about McCaca's loving relationships with lobbyists in general.

John McCain's narrative may be completely derailed by this scandal, and that can only mean good news for Democrats in November.

Yesterday was a very strange day for Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John "McCaca" McCain.

The New York Times came out with a story about McCain that was extremely bizarre. Full of innuendo and not much else, the story appeared to be alleging two things:

- That McCaca, like all Republics, has a very cozy relationship with lobbyists that contradicts his public stance on ethics and (undeserved) reputation for incorruptibility; and
- That this cozy relationship may have included bundling - not just money bundling, but bundling in the Victorian sense, meaning, um, cuddling. Yes, that's it...cuddling.

This is odd. First of all, they are attacking a Republic, most notably their darling McCaca, whom they have already endorsed for President. I thought they only attacked Democrats in The Times!

Second of all, it seems that they had this story in December, but were persuaded by the McCain campaign to hold it until he became the presumptive nominee. That The Times would agree to this is shocking, but not surprising - after all, they held the Bush spying story until after the 2004 election - but why would they even publish this to begin with?

Well, Radar, via the indispensable Talking Points Memo, has the answer as to the timing, at least. Right-wing publications such as The New Republic found out about the story. Not willing to be scooped, The Times was first off the mark. But unless there is more to this story, I'm quite skeptical at this point.

McCaca firmly denies every aspect of the article, calling it a smear campaign. Whether or not this is a smart tactic remains to be seen, but at least he is on the offense.

In other media attacks, we now come to possibly the most offensive thing I have ever heard a pundit say. Bill O'Really, one of the most loathsome media figures in America, said that if Michelle Obama thinks America is a flawed nation, it is legitimate to lynch her. (Here's what Michelle said, which in a rational world would not be offensive to anyone.)

Now, I know Mr. Bill didn't say "nappy-headed hos," which was enough to get Don Imus fired, and I know it was on the radio and not the TeeVee - but come on! How disgusting was that? He's advocating the lynching death of an African-American woman if she thinks that America is not the most perfectest, most awesomest country evah in the history of the universe. Gee, America has been so wonderful to African-Americans - why would she have any doubt? And in any case, SHE SAID NOTHING OF THE KIND.

This attack by O'Really, unskillfully disguised as support and sympathy, was beyond over-the-top. But where is Senator Obama's response to this? Why isn't he calling for O'Reilly's head? Due to the manipulations of the rightwing scream machine, this non-story has been in play for days now. Remind you of anything? Kerry's joke about Bush that was twisted into "He doesn't support the troops"? The Swiftboating of 2004?

This is just the first salvo in the war against Barack and Michelle Obama. The media has been holding their fire until now, because they assumed that Hillary Clinton would win. Now that it seems more likely that Barack will be the nominee, they are honing the narrative against him. Barack Osama Obama is a scary Muslim. Barack doesn't like Israel. Barack and Michelle don't love America. Barack has too much melanin in his skin. Etcetera etcetera ad infinitum.

I certainly hope that the decision NOT to call O'Really on his horrific and poisonous racism is not reflective of how Senator Obama will deal with the vicious onslaught that is coming, because ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Just ask Al Gore and John Kerry.

But since I've voted for and donated to Hillary, there's not much more I can do for my candidate. I am just going to have to put my fears that Obama is too conciliatory and kumbaya to beat McCain to rest. I'm just going to have to try to be Zen about everything until the nominee is chosen and the Dem-Republic matchup begins...and perhaps even until after the November elections.

But I am really, really terrified that if this is how Obama is going to handle media attacks, he does not have a fucking prayer in November.

"Ohhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....."

I just don't understand this argument I'm hearing from Obama and his supporters.

How is Barack Obama going to get Independent and Republican votes that Hillary Clinton can't...in the general election?

Sure, there are people out there that hate Hillary Clinton with a passion, thanks to the 16 years of lies and smears she's had to endure from the media. But if they've got McCain to vote for - who is, as we know, the most McMavericky, most Independent and Straight-Shooterish and Moderate Candidate Evah, according to the MCM - won't Independent and Republic voters go for him instead of Obama?

Even Obama supporters should be able to admit that the Senator from Illinois has gotten nothing but a honeymoon from the traditional media. Unfortunately, there will be a quick divorce if/when he becomes the Democratic nominee. Are people seriously, truly thinking that after months of "Barack Hussein Osama" + the "Rezko scandal," not to mention the innate racism of most Americans, McCain won't peel off a lot of those votes?

Of course he will. That's why the Republicans nominated him, and that's why he's running almost even with both Obama and Clinton in the polls right now. If Obama were so incredibly strong with Independent and Republican voters, wouldn't he be crushing McCain easily in national polling?

It was one thing to be low in the polls when name recognition made Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani front-runners. Not many people had heard of Barack Obama. But that was before all the debates and the media love and Party endorsements. So how do those poll results support his argument, which is a central tenet of his "kumbaya" campaign?

It is quite obvious that they do not. The person who would have decimated McCain was John Edwards, as the polls reflected at the time. The reason? People who won't vote for a woman named Clinton or a man named Obama would vote for him. You know - white males, who are disproportionately...Republics and Independents.

Clearly, if we wanted to bring Republics and Independents to our side, we should have nominated the safe, handsome, white, Southern male. But we didn't; and it's a mistake, and one not supported by any evidence, to think that Obama will automatically get his supporters. I was one, and I'm voting for Hillary.

So what would the winning strategy be?

Well, for one, it would be nice if Obama and his supporters stopped believing in fairy tales, and opened their eyes to the reality that he and Hillary are deadlocked in delegates (and that's only because Michigan and Florida were shut out). This hardly translates into a giant wave of momentum for Obama. If Hillary loses Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, then she should drop out and let Obama take the frontrunner position, in my opinion. But so far, the polls are showing that as usual, Hillary is stronger in the larger states.

I just can't help thinking that the winning strategy for Democrats is still a combined ticket for Clinton and Obama. They have both proven their strength in various demographics, and they could each bring a great deal to the other's campaign. Moreover, the excitement and participation of Democratic voters this year is palpable, and the turnout is absolutely breathtaking in the primaries. I wouldn't want the Party to lose either of these candidates and the sense of empowerment they bring to their supporters.

I don't think the theoretical gain of a few Republics and Independents should outweigh the almost certain reality of 16 years of Democratic Dominance in the White House. But then...

maybe it's just me.

McCain and Rove Form a Tentative Alliance

On Friday, a day after Karl Rove donated $2300 to John McCain's campaign, McCain (R-AZ) put aside a longstanding grudge over Rove's famously bold tactics in securing George Bush the 2000 GOP nomination, and said that Rove’s advice would be welcome in his campaign.

"Nobody denies he's one of the smartest political minds in America," McCain said. "I'd be glad to get his advice. I get advice from a lot of people. I'd be happy to have his advice."

Now, let me get this straight.

The American populace is screaming for a change. Bush's policies are proven disasters in every area. His approval ratings are Nixonian. The "wrong direction" numbers are 80%/20%. So, as the Republic nominee, the smartest thing to do would be to try to distance yourself from Bush, right? And since McCain is the recognized "maverickstraightshooterindependent" of the Republic Party, that shouldn't be so difficult. Right?

Let's look at this strategery from the so-called "strongest" Republic candidate.

War, My Friends

McCain is on record stating that he wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. He has also been caught on YouTube singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." He's gathered some of the most hated - and famously wrong - neoconservative warmongers to advise him on "more wars, my friends."

EXACTLY LIKE BUSH.

The Economy - Stupid?

McClueless recently stated that he didn't understand the economy very well and said in his defense, "I have Greenspan's book." Hmmmm, Alan Greenspan - wasn't that Bush's boy, whose advice led us directly into the Bush Depression?

EXACTLY LIKE BUSH.

Running a Negative Campaign - Good, or Really Really Great?

Both Hackabee and McCain have flamed Willard Romney for running a negative campaign. Yet, McCain has now shown himself to be willing to embrace the King/Queen of All Dirty Tricks, KKKarl Rove - otherwise known as "Bush's Brain."

EXACTLY. LIKE. BUSH.

Oh, McMaverick, you're just so dumb it's priceless. You're going down in flames just like your pathetic Chimp-In-Chief. You could have used the Lurve of the Matthews pundits, and your baseless reputation as a "straight talker," to promote just how different you are from Bush. Hell, it might even have worked. But instead, you're running to embrace him once again.

It's too good to be true, but I think it is. And despite the assurances of the traditional media, it's great news for Democrats.